Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials: A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously

Adwoa Parker, C. Arundel, N. Mills, L. Rooshenas, M. Jepson, J. Donovan, J. Blazeby, Elizabeth Coleman, Laura Clark, Laura Doherty, C. Hewitt, P. Partha Sarathy, David Beard, P. Bower, S. Brealey, P. Brocklehurst, Cindy L. Cooper, J. Croft, L. Culliford, Joseph Dias, D. Devane, S. Eldridge, R. Emsley, Sandra Galvin, E. Gemperle-Mannion, D. Jayne, Andrew J Metcalfe, A. Montgomery, A. Rangan, C. Sutton, P. Tharmanathan, S. Treweek, D. Torgerson
{"title":"Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials: A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously","authors":"Adwoa Parker, C. Arundel, N. Mills, L. Rooshenas, M. Jepson, J. Donovan, J. Blazeby, Elizabeth Coleman, Laura Clark, Laura Doherty, C. Hewitt, P. Partha Sarathy, David Beard, P. Bower, S. Brealey, P. Brocklehurst, Cindy L. Cooper, J. Croft, L. Culliford, Joseph Dias, D. Devane, S. Eldridge, R. Emsley, Sandra Galvin, E. Gemperle-Mannion, D. Jayne, Andrew J Metcalfe, A. Montgomery, A. Rangan, C. Sutton, P. Tharmanathan, S. Treweek, D. Torgerson","doi":"10.1177/26320843221106950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To test the feasibility of undertaking a simultaneous Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to train staff who recruit participants into surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by assessing key uncertainties around recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery and data collection. Study design and setting Twelve surgical RCTs were eligible. Interested sites (clusters) were randomised 1:1, with recruiting staff (surgeons and nurses) offered training or no training. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting sites across multiple surgical trials simultaneously. Secondary outcomes included numbers/types of staff enrolled, attendance at training, training acceptability, confidence in recruiting and participant recruitment rates six months later. Results Four RCTs (33%) comprising 91 sites participated. Of these, 29 sites agreed to participate (32%) and were randomised to intervention (15 sites, 29 staff) or control (14 sites, 29 staff). Research nurses attended and found the training to be acceptable; no surgeons attended. In the intervention group, there was evidence of increased confidence when pre- and post- training scores were compared (mean difference in change 1.42; 95% CI 0.56, 2.27; p = 0.002). There was no effect on recruitment rate. Conclusion It was feasible to randomise sites across four surgical RCTs in a simultaneous SWAT design. However, as small numbers of trials and sites participated, and no surgeons attended training, strategies to improve these aspects are needed for future evaluations.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"4 1","pages":"2 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843221106950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective To test the feasibility of undertaking a simultaneous Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to train staff who recruit participants into surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by assessing key uncertainties around recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery and data collection. Study design and setting Twelve surgical RCTs were eligible. Interested sites (clusters) were randomised 1:1, with recruiting staff (surgeons and nurses) offered training or no training. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting sites across multiple surgical trials simultaneously. Secondary outcomes included numbers/types of staff enrolled, attendance at training, training acceptability, confidence in recruiting and participant recruitment rates six months later. Results Four RCTs (33%) comprising 91 sites participated. Of these, 29 sites agreed to participate (32%) and were randomised to intervention (15 sites, 29 staff) or control (14 sites, 29 staff). Research nurses attended and found the training to be acceptable; no surgeons attended. In the intervention group, there was evidence of increased confidence when pre- and post- training scores were compared (mean difference in change 1.42; 95% CI 0.56, 2.27; p = 0.002). There was no effect on recruitment rate. Conclusion It was feasible to randomise sites across four surgical RCTs in a simultaneous SWAT design. However, as small numbers of trials and sites participated, and no surgeons attended training, strategies to improve these aspects are needed for future evaluations.
提高外科随机对照试验参与者招募的工作人员培训:同时跨四个宿主试验的试验内可行性研究(SWAT)
目的通过评估招募、随机化、干预提供和数据收集方面的关键不确定性,测试在试验中同时进行研究(SWAT)的可行性,以培训招募参与者参加外科随机对照试验(RCT)的工作人员。研究设计和设置12例外科随机对照试验符合条件。感兴趣的地点(集群)被1:1随机分配,招聘人员(外科医生和护士)接受培训或不接受培训。主要结果是同时在多个外科试验中招募站点的可行性。次要结果包括注册工作人员的数量/类型、参加培训的情况、培训的可接受性、对招聘的信心以及六个月后参与者的招聘率。结果共有4个随机对照试验(33%)参与,共91个位点。其中,29个研究点同意参与(32%),并被随机分为干预(15个研究点,29名工作人员)或对照(14个研究点、29名工作人)。研究护士参加了培训,发现培训是可以接受的;没有外科医生到场。在干预组中,当比较训练前和训练后的得分时,有证据表明信心增加(平均变化差异1.42;95%CI 0.56,2.27;p=0.002)。对招募率没有影响。结论在同时进行SWAT设计的情况下,在四个外科随机对照试验中随机化位点是可行的。然而,由于参与的试验和地点数量很少,而且没有外科医生参加培训,因此未来的评估需要改进这些方面的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信